Oculus co-founder: “Free is still not cheap enough” for current VR tech | Ars Technica | xxxOculus co-founder: “Free is still not cheap enough” for current VR tech | Ars Technica – xxx
菜单

Oculus co-founder: “Free is still not cheap enough” for current VR tech | Ars Technica

十月 14, 2018 - MorningStar

Skip to main content

Subscriptions

Comment activity

Sign up or login to join the discussions!

| Having trouble?
Sign up to comment and more Sign up

Maybe if they paid me —

Oculus co-founder: “Free is still not cheap enough” for current VR tech

Hardware, software, interface need to improve before VR hits mass-market levels.

Oculus co-founder: “Free is still not cheap enough” for current VR tech | Ars Technica
We’ll still use any excuse to reuse this photo of Ars alumnus Sebastian Anthony reacting to VR.
Sebastian Anthony

Ever since Oculus co-founder Palmer Luckey revealed that the first consumer Oculus Rift headset would launch at $600, many industry watchers have been arguing that the high price of entry was keeping virtual reality from becoming a truly revolutionary mass-market technology. Though prices for VR headsets and compatible hardware have come down quite a bit since then, sales and usage stats are still struggling to climb out of the doldrums when compared with other tech products.

Now Luckey, who left Oculus in early 2017, argues in a recent blog post that there is no price low enough to convince a critical mass of people to regularly engage with existing VR headsets:

No existing or imminent VR hardware is good enough to go truly mainstream, even at a price of $0.00. You could give a Rift+PC to every single person in the developed world for free, and the vast majority would cease to use it in a matter of weeks or months.

I know this from seeing the results of large scale real-world market testing, not just my own imagination—hardcore gamers and technology enthusiasts are entranced by the VR of today, as am I, but stickiness drops off steeply outside of that core demographic. Free is still not cheap enough for most people, because cost is not what holds them back actively or passively.

Luckey goes on to estimate that current VR technology could attract an absolute ceiling of 50 million active users worldwide—and that number only with significant industry effort. That’s a far cry from the 1 billion users Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg cites as his long-term goal for VR adoption.

Rather than price, Luckey says it’s “quality of experience” that’s holding VR back, and it’s not hard to see what he means. As cool as current VR headsets are, they’re still saddled with sweat-inducing bulk, limited resolution, 3D vergence issues, artificial hand-tracking interfaces, and more. While current technology can fix problems like getting tangled up in wires (for a price), those other VR quality-of-life issues will persist, pending technological breakthroughs, as Oculus’ Michael Abrash laid out in a talk at Oculus Connect last month.

Software is the other side of the equation. While there are plenty of great games and experiences available in VR these days, there aren’t too many that could be described as “killer apps” that would drive the average consumer to feel they absolutely need to integrate a headset into their everyday lives. This is especially true for non-gamers—a recent survey by Civic Science found that 77 percent of people who want to buy a VR headset play video games. That same survey finds a full 50 percent of respondents are just “not interested” in VR technology, adding weight to Luckey’s point.

All that said, Luckey isn’t worried that these problems will always hold back what he still calls a “reasonable candidate for most important technology of the century.” Even assuming “moderate technological advancement compounded over decades,” Luckey says improvements in hardware, content, and interface will eventually lead to VR’s “inevitable dominance as the final platform.” He urges those in the space to work at making those improvements more quickly, rather than spending money on “forced marketing to segments of the world that are not yet ready to embrace VR.”

Promoted Comments

  • darlox Seniorius Lurkius et Subscriptor
    Everything old is new again…

    Disclosure: I did my graduate work during what was, essentially, the second-wave of VR tech. The point where we hopped from room-sized “cave” systems, to wall-mount and tabletop holographic displays that you had to wear 3D shutter glasses to interact with. In both of the first two waves, VR was always “just an inch away” from becoming mainstream and taking over the world in some form or another.

    And it always follows the same cycle:
    1) This is the next big consumer technology
    2) Well, certain industries like architecture and design will really use this heavily
    3) Ok, maybe nobody except researchers and enthusiasts really want this, but we’re going to keep improving…

    Ultimately, content is king. What’s going to send VR tech to the mainstream is going to be a “killer app” or some Oasis/SecondLife/whatever environment that actually plays like the real world in key ways. Then the hardware will catch up to iteratively improve on that experience, and we’ll have a sustainable cycle.

    Unfortunately, the hardware-first approach that has driven all of VR since inception is little more than a solution looking for a problem.

    I would be disappointed, except that I already went through that about 2 years ago when it became clear that this VR cycle was going to go the way of the last two, despite the exponentially more money dumped into it. Oculus co-founder: “Free is still not cheap enough” for current VR tech | Ars Technica

    45 posts | registered

  • wedgeski Ars Centurion
    320×200 pixels didn’t stop my jaw almost detaching the first time I saw Doom, and the screen-door effect didn’t stop me ripping the Rift off my head when I was convinced the T-Rex in the demo was about to bite my face off.

    It’s the inconveniences that stop me using my Rift as much as I’d like. I have to swap to a smaller pair of glasses. I have to continually dodge the cable. I can’t manage much more than an hour before needing a break. I can’t lose myself in Rift for an afternoon like I can on a console — but then I can’t get anywhere near the same kind of experience from a non-VR game. The experience is *too good*. I force myself to take breaks from PC games. I’m happy to take a break from a Rift game.

    273 posts | registered

reader comments

83

Share this story

Kyle Orland Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area.
Email kyle.orland@arstechnica.com // Twitter @KyleOrl

You must login or create an account to comment.

Channel Ars Technica

Related Stories

    Sponsored Stories

    Powered by

      Today on Ars


        Notice: Undefined variable: canUpdate in /var/www/html/wordpress/wp-content/plugins/wp-autopost-pro/wp-autopost-function.php on line 51